Last chance to help fund the 50 to 1 project

Just over a day left now. Note, I have no financial interest in this film, I’m merely one of the people to be interviewed. Thanks – Anthony

===========================================

50-to-1 has the potential to shift the climate debate for good!

Watch the video to see how, or read on!

What if we could show you that trying to ‘stop’ climate change is 50 times more expensive than adapting to it? And what if we could prove it using numbers and formulas accepted by the IPCC, CRU and other ‘consensus’ bodies? Well that’s exactly what 50-to-1 does.

The original calculations were done by Lord Christopher Monckton who has since presented his conclusions to audiences of scientists, economists and mathematicians all over the world. You can see the calculations and a FULL LIST OF SOURCES here: 50 to 1 calculations and sources

Lord Monckton has now approached me to take the above and present it in a video and web package suitable for mass consumption on the internet. If we can successfully help the general public to understand the futility of ‘stopping’ climate change and the relative value of adapting, then we can stop wasting money on useless schemes and start putting our money where it will ACTUALLY make a difference.

The 50 to 1 project is designed to get this message to the general public in three different, complimentary ways:

1. A 7 minute video. This video is designed to be fun, easily understood and contain everything you need to know in one tight and beautifully produced package. This 7 minute video is the centrepiece of the project. It’s designed to be enjoyable, informative and SHORT enough that people will watch it and then pass it on via email and social media. This in turn will encourage people who want to know more to go to…

2. … The 50 to 1 website. The website will host the video and more importantly will contain ALL the references for ALL the information contained in the video (see the link above for an example). Anyone who wants to fact-check or dispute the video will have open access to all our sources so they can see for themselves that the conclusions drawn in ’50 to 1′ are consistent with the science as understood by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For those who really want to go deep into the issue and wrap their head around the current state of climate economics the website will also host…

3. … Expert Interviews. So far we have 7 confirmed interviewees, Former President Vaclav Klaus, Prof Henry Ergas, Prof Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, Prof David Evans, Christopher Essex, and Joanne Nova . Whilst excerpts of the interviews will be used in the 7 minute video, the real value is that we will be spending 30 minutes to 1 hour with each of them (so 3.5+ hours combined run time!) and the full interview with each of these internationally respected experts will be available on the 50-to-1 website as they share their thoughts and perspectives on climate change and in particular policy responses such as carbon taxes and trading schemes.

Each part of the 3 part structure is designed to work together, attracting people with the professionally produced, fun, funny and engaging 7 minute video, and then allowing them to fact check and explore on the website and discover for themselves through the interviews the true cost of ‘stopping’ climate change… which is 50 times more than adapting!

50 to 1 cuts across all the noise and fury surrounding the ‘climate debate’ and gets right to the point: Even if the IPCC is right, and even if climate change IS happening and it IS caused by man, we are STILL better off adapting to it as it happens than we are trying to ‘stop’ it. ‘Action’ is 50 times more expensive than ‘adaptation’, and that’s a conclusion which is derived directly from the IPCC’s own predictions and formulae!

This video, website and interview combination is a game-changer and could radically shift the climate debate. But it will only have an impact if a large number of people watch the video. The video needs to be so fun, fast paced and visually engaging that people will not only watch it, but also pass it on for their friends to watch. 7 minutes is an ideal length because it’s short enough to keep people’s attention, whilst being long enough for us to pack in all the information required to understand the maths and economics behind 50 to 1. It’s effectively a short film which mixes the presentation of the maths and formulae with animations to illustrate every step along the way AND snippets of interviews with internationally respected experts lending the weight of their professional opinions to the subject.

President Vaclav Klaus, Professor Henry Ergas, Professor Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, Professor David Evans, Christopher Essex, and Joanne Nova have all agreed to be interviewed and we are still waiting to hear back from a few others. Traveling with a production crew (to North America and Europe and back as well as around Australia) to get the interviews, as well as studio filming, editing, animating, colour grading and audio sweetening costs money. That’s why I need your help.

The 50 to 1 project has the potential to shift the climate debate for good. It has the potential to undermine political attempts to impose more taxes, stupid subsidies and the myriad of ‘green schemes’ which we’ve seen spring up in the last decade or so. It has the potential to save us all a small fortune in years to come if we can totally undermine public support for ‘Action’ on climate change and shift the focus instead to adaptation as required.

I’ve enlisted the help of an award winning production company here in Melbourne Australia to ensure the highest possible standard of production. All up we’ve calculated a budget (including all the travel etc) of $155,000 to do everything properly, although we can scrape by with less if we cut a few corners, potentially as little as $130,000, but any less than that and it will start to cost us money rather than enable us to pay our bills!

Your donation will help us to reach our minimum budget and once we get there it will be ‘game on’ and we will be able to get cracking and make 50-to-1 a reality.

30 thoughts on “Last chance to help fund the 50 to 1 project”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/‎ all the answers you’ll need. Otherwise wait for time to make it obvious. OF COURSE you don’t want to believe it any more than the flatties wanted to believe the Earth was round, and they didn’t have to change their selfish, destructive lifestyle. You are no more scientific than they and one day when it gets really bad [really really bad] there may be a lot of anger at those who tried sohard to delay that they’ll come to get you. You can’t hide, every lie you’ve printed is there until the energy runs out and the internet dies. Or you could get another hobby.

This is worth doing. It is not enough, but it will help.
It leaves untouched the idea that warming is bad for other living things (WHEN will these idiots ever look at which latitudes biodiversity is greatest?) and it leaves intact the trashing of science. Those things can be addressed elsewhere.

One important point about economics–the whole thing appears to be an Elite scam to get more tax money from a tapped-out public via new taxes (carbon taxes). This merely crashes the economy, meaning total revenues go down. The only way you can really get more tax revenues is to give the people more freedom. Then the people produce more, and some of the increase can go to government..

Even if the IPCC is right, [LOL] and even if climate change IS happening [LOL] and it IS caused by man, [LOL, GETTING THERE] we are STILL better off adapting to it as it happens than we are trying to ‘stop’ it. ‘Action’ is 50 times more expensive than ‘adaptation’, and that’s a conclusion which is derived directly from the IPCC’s own predictions and formulae!’ Here we have the nub of the objections, costs, your money! Oh dear, sad to be so obsessed with money, it’s only tokens you know. You clearly, despite all the admissions inthe above quote, don’t understand. Let me make it simple: when the atmosphere last had 400 ppm Carbon Dioxide in it, the seas were 28 metres higher than now. All that water is presently still locked away in ice, but rapidly melting [you can’t deny thedata, it’s all been collected and collated by better brains than yours] so how long do you think before the seas are the same height again? Hw you gonna adapt, build an ark?
I agree it’s far too late, the world should have listened back in the sixties, and it’s a case of adapting, I’m glad you have realised that much, but adapting won’t hack it, too late to evolve into an aquatic species. IF we make strenuous effirts to cut carbon, cut our wateful lifestyles, want less and satisfy our needs, that would be real adapting, and maybe some would survive, and maybe they’d have renewable energy still to power their world [good argument for siting wind turbines on hill tops].
Meanwhile, the floods increase, the droughts spread, land is lost, lives aqre lost, and you want to make a video of talking heads, none of them of any note or with real knowledge of the processes happening, and that will sort it for good? I know all deniers I’ve come across aqre pretty simplistic, if not to say simple minded, but you can’t seriously think a video will change anything that the climate won’t immediately disprove, if not this year then next. I expect you’ll get the money though; it’s peanuts to what the oil industry has already spent of disinformation.
So bring it on. You have to remember that you don’t matter, you are of no consequence, you are just another hominid with head in sand who wants the party to go on and on. grow up.

Well they have been a wonderful source of easily-refutable non-facts for years, but I doubt the producers can get all the source material from SkepSci.

Next time you might want to use the “sarc” tag, or otherwise indicate your attempt at humor. After all, since you’re trying to pull off that old political trick of blaming your opponents for doing what you do, here accusing WUWT of what SkepSci is widely known to have done and be doing, but you’re doing it for obvious entertainment purposes, some people might take you seriously and decide to take offense.

Ah, I see you’re still attempting humor!

I agree it’s far too late, the world should have listened back in the sixties, and it’s a case of adapting, I’m glad you have realised that much, but adapting won’t hack it, too late to evolve into an aquatic species.

Ha, like we ever had that much time at all!

Really, this is good humor for a basic blog comment, but you really need to make it more obvious you’re joking. Else the moderators might decide you’re here for purposes of anonymous deception and slander, and they’ll respond by posting the ISP trace data that leads to your university account, etc. We get some really obnoxious blockheads who get off from chucking rocks from the shadows. They tend to run away pretty quickly when the spotlight gets close. ;-)

oneworldnet = Chicken Little. (Look it up if you’re too young to recall who that is). Oh how history repeats itself, even though Ms Little was a fictional character, we have the real deal right here as a guest. Oneworldnet is in fact, the real deal; the real life case for the inspiration of the fabled story.
Oneworldnet – please slow down, and take a breath of air. You’ve been con’d (conned?) Open up a science book and try to understand.

Is it a sign of progress that practically the only “warmist” site we still talk about is SkepSci? It’s been ages since ReallyRealClimate was chewed over although Gavin pops up by himself. It’s been, what, well over a year, since HyperDeltoid or Only In It For The Pyrite got mentioned, or RabbettsRunOver.

I started out an inquiring and intuitive skeptic. Then I read more and more of the gaping holes in alarmist science, with little beyond demeaning insult to refute the those findings, Next I noted the quasi religious fervor of alarmists’ positions.. Now I’m totally convinced that, whatever AGW might exist, the hysteria is unwarranted and backed by bad science ; that the proposed solutions are NON solutions; and, finally, any effort to roll back energy usage is doomed in the context of economic and political reality .( See R. Pielke Jr,’s Iron Law). The US is the only major economy
which has reduced carbon emissions, and it’s happened through innovation in fracking technology
spurred by economics, not panic. When “cleaner” renewables become economically practical, spurred by the need to conserve our carbon resources, then and only then, will they become a significant player in our energy future. The zealotry of people like oneworldnet only magnify the obvious truth that THEY are the DENIERS of reality. Meanwhile, as climate changes, as it must, ALWAYS, we should put our resources into adapting to a different world – whatever that might be.

The first comment on this page shows why Anthony Watts has been so succesful with WUWT. Anthony has taken an open approach from the start, where people on both (or all?) sides of the argument are welcome to post their civil comments. SkepticalScience.com censors comments and sometimes edits them to change their meaning. I was explicitly banned from Richard Dawkins’ website for posting, without comment, a link to a draft paper by Roy Spencer. I am sure I am also banned from RealClimate because my attempted civil and reasonable comments there simply don’t appear.

oneworldnet – It might be useful to reflect on the fact that your comment is published here, and recognise that it does show that this website has some merit. It might also be useful to reflect on the fact that if you want to access any actual climate data, the easiest place to find it is in the WUWT reference pages (how much ice loss? for example – just go to WUWT. Sea level? it’s in WUWT.) WUWT does not control the data in any way, it does not try to suppress any inconvenient data. In climate, WUWT is the truly scientific site.

oneworlnet, I don’t expect you to suddenly change your mind just because your comment gets posted here. But in science, (a) you don’t always get the results you want, and (b) evidence trumps theory and evidence trumps opinion, even the opinion of large numbers of esteemed scientists. I have been convinced by the evidence that the IPCC has badly exaggerated the warming effect of CO2, and that there is absolutely no climate reason to reduce CO2 emissions. All the time I make sure that I am ready to change my mind if the evidence changes, but to date the evidence is pretty overwhelming: such as no extra warming in the tropical troposphere, no global warming for longer than the 15 year limit given by NOAA in their 2008 report, no substantiation for the feedbacks relied upon in the IPCC report, and a cooler climate now than in the past (eg. 1000, 2000 and 3000 years ago and in the Eemian). And bear this in mind: in science, no matter how reasonable and attractive a theory may look, a single fact is all that is needed to disprove it.

LOL I’m a skeptic because of one of my other hobbies, history. The lie involved was when ‘they’ tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period. Up to that point I was willing to believe the lies ‘they’ were telling me.

Higher sea level three million years ago had very little to do with CO2 (mostly an effect, not a cause of warming), but everything to do with the subsequent closure of the Isthmus of Panama, which contributed to our ongoing Ice Age. Open the Panama Strait up again & change the planets’ orbital mechanics & you might start seeing parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet melt, but not Antarctica, which has been deeply iced over for at least 33 million years. It did however lose some mass in the Miocene despite lowered CO2.

I too was willing to give “climate scientists” the benefit of the doubt, although their models & conclusions derived therefrom made no sense to me, until reading Overpeck’s, “We need to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. That was clearly activism, not science. Like “nuclear winter”.

OneWorldNet are you going to compete with the WWW? OWN – yes! Well done it just could catch on. Incidentally quite a good rant however to get any traction on this blog you need to produce supporting data.

oneworldnet says:
May 27, 2013 at 1:29 pm
===================================================================
On the long shot that this fool troll comes back to check, first the kindergarten stuff: there never was a flat earth/round earth controversy, not since Aristotle anyway. This is just a fairy tale accepted by those who know nothing of the history of science, and not much about science either. But the ability of know-nothings to successfully promote and maintain such nonsense for centuries is closely akin to the neoclimatologists’ effective brainwashing of the world at large with their infantile end-of-the-world propaganda. There’s a sucker born every second. –AGF

A wonderful idea.
Why not produce a full length documentary (or develop to production) and release a sparkling 7 minute trailer? The market exists to facilitate the documentary film industry’s interest. Tax credits and film incentives exist in all the countries mentioned. The premise is solid, the deed needs to be done, and the project could be “self” financing after a minimal investment.
Just my “two cents”, the only donation i can afford. :(

Against my better judgment I just made a donation. I used to donate to CSICOP, which fights anti-scientific beliefs, such as dowsing, fortune-telling, etc. No matter how much evidence they produced, they never seemed to make any progress. This 50 to 1 project seems like a worthwhile attempt, but I’ll be surprised if it has much of an impact.

oneworldnet says:
May 27, 2013 at 1:45 pm
—————————————————————-
Everything you’ve stated must be from a fable.
You never stated one reference…..not one, unless you were parroting Al Gore’s movie.
These sound like his inconvenient lies.
Haven’t you read anything since they made you watch that movie?
cn